It’s the Same Old Story But it’s Told a Different Way*

First, thanks to all of you for voting in my poll.  I really appreciate your interest in what I write here; it means a lot to me. You voted that you wanted to read and talk some more about some of crime fiction’s trends and possible future directions, so here goes :-) .  I find the topic of what’s happening in crime fiction really fascinating and I’m glad you do, too. Crime fiction has evolved and continues to evolve; if it didn’t it would become far too stale to win and keep fans. Here are a few more of my ideas on some of the changes crime fiction has gone through in the last years.

 

Motives For Murder

In classic and Golden Age crime fiction, motives for murder tended to be extrinsic. Murderers in those novels kill for gain, out of fear or anger, or sometimes for revenge or love. For example, in Arthur Conan Doyle’s A Study in Scarlet, Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson investigate two deaths. Enoch Drebber and Joseph Stangerson are American visitors to London, staying at a rooming house. Drebber is murdered and at first it seems as though his landlady’s son Arthur Charpentier is the culprit. Charpentier’s innocent, though, and the police have to look elsewhere for the criminal. Then, Stangerson is murdered. Holmes finds out who the killer is and what the motive is. In this case, it’s revenge for an old sin.

Gain is the motive for the poisoning murder of Emily Inglethorp in Agatha Christie’s The Mysterious Affair at Styles. In that novel, the victim has a large fortune to leave and several relations who would be only too glad to have it. Hercule Poirot and Captain Hastings work together to find out which one of the people in Emily Inglethorp’s life was desperate enough to kill. Lots of other Golden Age novels and stories are also built around motives of gain, fear, revenge, or some other extrinsic motive, and even today, lots of novels feature that kind of motive. Mine do.

But in the last hundred years or so, we’ve learned quite a lot about the way the human mind works. Beginning with the work of people like Sigmund Freud, we’ve begun to learn more and more about psychology. That knowledge has found its way into crime fiction. Today’s crime fiction features quite a number of psychological motives for murder. For example, Ruth Rendell’s A Judgement in Stone begins this way:

 

“Eunice Parchman killed the Coverdale family because she could not read or write.

 

This is a novel about, among other things, the effect of “being on the outside.” It explores psychology in a way that early crime fiction didn’t. So does 13 Steps Down, another of Rendell’s standalones. Rendell’s certainly not the only one to explore psychology in her novels. Martin Edwards does the same with his Lake District series featuring DCI Hannah Scarlett and Oxford historian Daniel Kind. Many other authors do, too.

Today we even see novels that explore mental illness such as bi-polar disorder, depression and PTSD. I see this trend continuing as we learn more and more about the way the human mind works. In a way, that adds an interesting dimension to the genre. On the other hand, our interest in psychology has also been part of the motivation behind the proliferation of serial killers in today’s crime fiction. Some of them work quite well, but it’s very, very difficult to do that successfully.

 

Grittiness

Early crime fiction and a lot of Golden Age crime fiction tends to be almost clean-scrubbed in its depiction of life. Of course there are exceptions but as a rule, the detective fiction of the time is fairly sanitised. For example, in Dorothy Sayers’ Strong Poison, mystery novelist Harriet Vane is tried for the murder of her former lover Philip Boyes. She’s got a motive, too, since they’d quarreled shortly before his murder, and since she had arsenic, the murder weapon, in her possession. Lord Peter Wimsey attends the trial and, smitten by Vane, determines to clear her name. He gets his chance when the jury cannot agree on a verdict and Vane is granted a new trial. Wimsey interacts with several people in this novel as he searches for the real killer, including people who don’t live in very reputable parts of town. And yet, we don’t get dark, seamy descriptions of life there. Nor are we given a real description of what life in prison was probably like for a woman at the time this novel was written.

With the advent of the “hardboiled” genre from authors such as Raymond Chandler and later, John D. MacDonald, we begin to see grittier descriptions of neighbourhoods and people. For example, we get a very uncompromising look at Glasgow in Denise Mina’s Garnethill trilogy. We get also get a very harsh, uncompromising and gritty look at Melbourne in Peter Temple’s Jack Irish series. Those series have lots of differences, but what they have in common is that the author does not take pains to “scrub up” the setting, the people, the motive for murder, or much of anything else. We even see this grittiness in some lighter novels, although it’s less marked. In Marth Grimes’ The Anodyne Necklace, for instance, some of the action takes place in London, but it’s hardly the London that the tourists see. Inspector Richard Jury and his friend Melrose Plant visit some very seedy homes and pubs, and Grimes doesn’t mince words in describing them, although it’s also fair to say that she also doesn’t get as gritty as descriptions we see in some other series.

 

Explicitness

Along with the increased grittiness we see in more recent crime fiction, there’s also a lot more explicitness. Perhaps this trend started as readers wanted crime fiction that was more realistic.

In early crime fiction and much Golden Age crime fiction, for instance, there are essentially no mentions, other than in oblique terms, of physical intimacy. Certainly there aren’t graphic descriptions of it. There are also essentially no explicit, graphic depictions of violence, including murder. For example, in Josephine Tey’s The Man in the Queue, an unknown man is stabbed while waiting with a group of other people to see a play. We know the man’s been murdered, but we don’t get every gory detail. And in Dorothy Sayers’ Strong Poison, we know perfectly well that Harriet Vane and Philip Boyes had an intimate relationship. Yet the details of it are not described.

With the advent of noir and other “hardboiled” crime fiction, we begin to see more descriptions of violence. Certainly the violence in Dashiell Hammett’s The Thin Man is more explicit than it is in Tey’s work. We also begin to see more explicit description of physical intimacy in this kind of crime fiction than in earlier crime fiction.

In some of today’s crime fiction, both violence and physical intimacy are described in sometimes very graphic detail. And even crime fiction that doesn’t dwell on those scenes sometimes includes them. For instance, we see both in Deon Meyer’s Blood Safari. That particular novel works well because neither the violence nor the intimacy overtakes the plot. And that’s perhaps the key. Including explicitness doesn’t have to ruin a novel; in fact sometimes it falls out naturally from the plot. It’s when those scenes are gratuitous that they take away from a novel.

What’s ironic is that these scenes, and the treatment of formerly taboo topics such as rape, are increasingly common while at the same time, certain things such as pejorative terms and “isms,” which used to be perfectly acceptable in crime fiction, no longer are. Those developments give an interesting perspective on how our views of what is and isn’t acceptable have changed.

Will this trend towards explicitness and the treatment of very taboo topics continue? In the short run they probably will, as books with this theme sell well. I am hopeful that in the long run, it’ll be the quality of the plot and characters rather than explicitness that people will want. People may in fact become bored with books that offer nothing but relentless explicitness and those books will stop selling. In closing, let me just share what Agatha Christie had to say about this same topic back in the mid-1930’s. In Death on the Nile, we meet once-popular novelist Salome Otterbourne who’s has increasingly lost her audience, mostly because of the themes of her books. She and her daughter Rosalie are taking a cruise of the Nile when the real-life murders of fellow passenger Linette Ridgeway Doyle and other characters prove far more gripping than anything Otterbourne’s written:  Here’s what Rosalie Otterbourne says about her mother’s declining sales:

 

“People are tired of all that cheap sex stuff… ”

 

What do you think? Do you see changes in motives for murder, realism/grittiness and more explicitness? Where do you see the genre heading from here?

 

 
 

*NOTE: The title of this post is a line from Bon Jovi’s The More Things Change.

About these ads

28 Comments

Filed under Agatha Raisin, Arthur Conan Doyle, Dashiell Hammett, Denise Mina, Deon Meyer, Dorothy Sayers, John D. MacDonald, Josephine Tey, Martha Grimes, Martin Edwards, Peter Temple, Raymond Chandler, Ruth Rendell

28 Responses to It’s the Same Old Story But it’s Told a Different Way*

  1. It seems permissiveness in literature runs in cycles just as most other social and political trends do. The thing that surprised me the most was finding sex scenes and even a bit more violence in a few cozy mysteries I’ve read over the last few years. For me, it’s distracting and rarely adds to the story and characters. In thrillers and suspense where the themes are more mainstream, however, I can handle it as long as the scenes work within the plot.

    • Pat – Now that’s an interesting point! There really is more edginess in cosies than there used to be, and I’m wondering if the sub-genre is changing just as the overall genre is changing. I hadn’t thought about that, but it makes perfect sense to me. It really does! As you say, that kind of edginess can work quite well in noir or thrillers, but I agree that it doesn’t work in cosies as a rule.

  2. I think there is a great change. Can you imagine people fifty years ago being willing to read Val McDermid? I think you’re right about us getting into more psychological reasons for murder. Great post.

    • Clarissa – Thank you :-) . And Val McDermid’s work is a very good example of the kind of psychological thriller that’s become not just acceptable but incredibly popular in the last years as we understand psychology better, and as crime fiction becomes increasingly grittier. Thanks for bringing up her work as an example.

  3. Great points here Margot. I agree some stories seems to be more gritty and explicit in both language and sexual content. I’ve found a number of books that appear to be overdone so to speak with language and sexual content when it really didn’t add anything to the story. For example, I know certain storylines and situations call for foul language but when it’s used in what I call unnatural circumstances, it takes away from the story for me. The same is true for sexual content. I don’t think sexual encounters in every chapter is necessary unless I’m reading a romance.

    Mason
    Thoughts in Progress

    • Mason – Thank you :-) . I like your term unnatural circumstances, too. That is, I think, the key to deciding how much sexual content, foul language or violence is appropriate for a story. If it fits in naturally and is a natural part of the story, that’s one thing. However, too often those things don’t fall out naturally from the story. That just takes away from the novel.

  4. Margot: I am pretty confident in saying there is not as graphic description of death in vintage mysteries as starts The Chemistry of Death by Simon Beckett where boys find a line of maggots migrating from a decomposing corpse. Extremely graphic but related to the story.

    Less necessary to me were the bathtubs of blood in Eight in a Box by Raffi Yessayan.

    I doubt there is a Golden Age series with the succession of themes used by Jill Edmondson with her character, Sasha Jackson. The series has dealt with phone sex, prostitution and S & M fetishes in the three books. I feel Jill has explored rather than exploited sex in the books.

    • Bill – I’m glad you mention Simon Beckett’s series. He’s one of the few authors I’ve read who do a really effective job describing a graphic death without it being “over the top.” As you say, his descriptions relate to the story. They aren’t gratuitous.
       
      And you’re quite right that Edmonson does an effective job of exploring sex-related themes without exploiting them (I like your choice of word there, by the way). I don’t feel “hit over the head.” Some of today’s authors really are able to get gritty, realistic, and explore some harsh themes without it getting gratuitous, and to me, that’s the key.

  5. When I was reading Val McDermid’s TRICK OF THE DARK recently I couldn’t help myself but wonder how long McDermid had waited to write a book featuring 3 main characters who happened to be lesbians. Could she have gotten it published 20 years ago? 15? 10? Even now some of the reviews at sites like Amazon and Good Reads were quite vitriolic in their hatred for this particular aspect of the book but obviously McDermid and her publishers figured that now (or 2010 anyway) the reaction would be manageable but I do wonder if the idea had been floating in her mind for a while. I certainly think it’s a positive trend in crime fiction that reflects society generally being more accepting of lesbian and gay people than would have been the case when the golden age mysteries were being published.

    • Bernadette – Now that is a really interesting and positive trend in crime fiction. Authors like Victor Banis had been writing gay characters for a long time; in fact his The Man From C.A.M.P, from the late 1960′s, features gay secret agent Jackie Holmes. But work like that didn’t really reach wide audiences at the time, and it wasn’t until the early nineties with work like McDermid’s and some others that we began to see gay and lesbian characters play leading roles in crime fiction.
       
      I agree completely, too, that society simply would not have been accepting of such characters during the early days of crime fiction or the Golden Age, and I think that’s one way in which modern crime fiction has really gotten better – it’s more representative. There are now all sorts of sleuths, including gay ones.

  6. oh and I didn’t vote in your poll but I will read whatever you write because I always learn something…either a book (or books) I need to add to my wishlist or something to make me think and reflect about my own reading…so you write whatever you want and I’ll keep lapping it up even if I can’t always think of anything intelligent to say :)

  7. kathy d.

    I don’t mind scenes of physical intimacy if they’re part of the story and not done to sensationalize the plot, or for the sake of publishers and book promoters’ ads for the book.
    However, I object to gratuitous violence and sexual assaults that are done to death these days in thrillers, I guess is the genre. It’s just not only worth reading but one wonders who is buying this stuff, and if one should stay away from the bookshelves in stores that stock them, and be leery of anyone looking at the books.
    Rape was handled well in Indridason’s recent book, and it was not sensationalized. And its resulting rage is handled well with one of Hakan Nesser’s books, no spoilers here. In one of Helene Turston’s books, the topic is also handled well in terms of its impact on someone, without overdoing the descriptions. This does have to be written carefully.
    On another note, I read the ridiculous attacks on Val McDermid’s book at Amazon and wanted to write a note in response, but decided it was pointless. If people can’t open their minds to reading about human relationships as they exist in the real world, which may differ from their own, then that is too bad. But writing posts attacking the author and book are kind of juvenile and very narrow-minded.
    Most of us read to expand our thinking and understanding of the human condition, or at least, that is one goal.

    • Kathy – You make such a good point! There are many kinds of human relationships, and authors write about them. So like you, I’m always dismayed by the kind of vitriol you mention. Of course, you can’t change people’s minds unless they are willing to think in a different way. Still….
       
      That said, though, you’re quite right that there are some things that just do not add at all to a book. Drawn-out scenes of extreme violence and sexual assaults are good examples of that. There’s no need to them to be depicted in graphic and brutal detail in order to explore their impact. You’ve mentioned some fine examples of authors who do that without resorting to graphic detail.
       
      And as for scenes of intimacy, I think you’re right that if they fall out naturally from the plot, and aren’t written just to sell more copies of the book, that’s fine. In fact, it’s only natural that people are attracted and do something about that attraction, so that can make characters more real. But yes, it takes away from a story when it’s sensationalised.

  8. Thanks Margot. Some great themes here. I am currently reading R J Ellory’s ‘A Simple Act of Violence’ and with only 10% of the book left to read I’m still not clear of the motive. It reminds me, in a very roundabout way, of the AC Poirot books, such as ‘Three Act Tragedy’ where you only know WHY right at the very end. It’s (going back to your previous post) the multi layered narrative which means this book couldn’t have been written fifty years ago. But I must go, I have the book to finish…….

    • Sarah – Thank you :-) . And I think it takes a deft hand to create an engaging story where we only know the motive for everything at the very end. I won’t keep you from your reading, now; I look forward to your review. :-)

  9. Patti Abbott

    Very interesting discussion, Margot. We just had a murder down the road from us. And since he took out a five million dollar life insurance policy on his wife six months ago, I think profit still ranks awfully high.

    • Patti – Thanks :-) It’s shuddering to think of a murder so close to home, even if it does seem like a clear-cut case of a personal murder for gain…. But you’re right; profit/gain is still a strong motive for murder.

  10. I like the new reasons for murder in the more modern crime books but still love the British style cozies where the motives are almost always the same – blackmail….and a few more.

    • Harvee – I agree that today’s crime fiction allows for a lot more variety in terms of motive. Like you, I still like the “traditional” reasons for murder (blackmail, gain, fear, etc..), but some of the ways in which today’s authors explore psychology are definitely intriguing!

  11. I hated the mystery novels my mother read in the Sam Spade era because the women characters were either bimbos or Donna Reeds. No reality when it came to women at all. Now I’m addicted to mystery novels and one reason is that many authors of our day write realistically about both sexes, their sexuality, their intelligence or lack thereof, forms of insanity, social position, and every other aspect of humanity. Now that’s what I want to read, and probably one reason I don’t like fantasy or science fiction or horror stories.

    • Barbara – You make a very strong point here. Most people are much more attracted to novels where the characters are realistic. Otherwise they have no appeal and, as happened in your case, can actually put a reader completely off an author or a genre. Today’s novels really do tend to be more realistic in terms of gender roles – or at least explore them in more depth.

  12. Some excellent food for thought in this post, Margot, and by the commenters so far. For me I prefer the no-holds-barred modern approach, where people can write about what they like, compared with 80 years ago when they were far more constrained.
    Bernadette has a good point about Trick of the Dark (which had more lesbians than three;-) ), but I would add to that that Val McD is wanting to be an international bestseller now, in taking that “risk”. She already did write a series about a lesbian PI, Linsday Duncan, many years ago (1980s?) but it was read by “faithful mystery/women’s fiction” readers, not by mainstream. By chance, I’ve just read a book written in 2000 (unknowing in advance) about a lesbian investigating a crime, where all the women in the book are lesbians (pretty much) because of the plot. This was published by a small lesbian/gay press. Another novel I recently read, Any Human Face by Charles Lambert, has just been published by one of Britain’s main publishers (Macmillan) and all the male characters (pretty much, again) are gay & the book is much more explicit than Trick of the Dark. Yet in Hammet’s time, when his partner Lilian Helman wrote The Children’s Hour, the theme had to be treated as “shocking” in order for it to be raised. I am not quite sure what I’m writing here!!!! – I suppose I think that people have been able to, and have, written quite explicit material for many years, but they have not been able to break into the top of the bestseller lists in doing so.

    My main view on this, if of interest, is that it is good that people can write about whatever they want to, without fear of censorship (even though it might mean a small publisher!). What is important is what they, as a storyteller, do with that ability. Just because you “can” write all this stuff does not mean you “have to” or “should”, necessarily. It all depends on the context of the novel in question.

    Sorry about the long, rather unfocused, comment (it is Sunday evening here and I am too relaxed!)

    • Maxine – No need to apologise. I think you make some very good points here. Today, even the largest presses publish books that include all sorts of themes and focus on all sorts of sleuths, whether they’re homosexual, heterosexual or something else. In other words, one no longer has to use a “specialised” kind of publisher and target a restricted audience. Rather, people everywhere are now reading books that used to be considered marginalised. You’ve given some really interesting examples, too, to illustrate your point. As you say, people have been writing on these themes and with these characters for a long time, but now it’s “gone mainstream.”
       
      Like you, I like this modern approach to writing and publishing. The emphasis after all in a story should be on a solid plot, strong characters and so on. Whether or not a book is published should depend on whether the book has a strong plot and well-written characters. As you say, it’s got to be done with quality and that, not the sexual orientation of the characters or something about theme, should be the deciding factor in publishing. Given that, I like the freedom of choice readers and authors have to explore all sorts of people, themes, places and so on.
       
      …and thanks for the kind words. I’m enjoying this conversation, too :-)

  13. kathy d.

    I’m reminded of my earlier and first reading of crime fiction, when as a teen-ager, I read books starring Nero Wolfe, Sherlock Holmes and Perry Mason, but also a few by Dorothy Sayers and Josephine Tey. They were fine with me at the time.
    But the ones I refused to read then I won’t read now: Mike Hammer/Mickey Spillane books. The covers depicting violence against women and the demeaning of the women characters turned me off then as now.
    Unfortunately, some of these books still are written, and, unfortunately, published. I seem to see more critical comments recently around the blogosphere about male writers’ bad depictions of women characters.
    They still can be victims, objects or very superficially drawn. Still more progress to be made.

    • Kathy – Oh, there most certainly is. In many noir and “hardboiled” novels we see women as victims, sometimes of brutal crimes. And even less “hardboiled” novels still sometimes depict women in unpleasant ways. We’ve made a lot of progress in terms of female characters in crime fiction but as you remind us, there’s more to be done.
       
      Like you, there are certain novels and authors I choose not to read for that reason or because they gratuitously violent for no plot-related reason. As Maxine says, just because one can write about things doesn’t mean one has to, or even should.

  14. A great post, Margot!

    Here´s to Rosalie Otterbourne, hoping she is right :)

What's your view? I'd love to hear it.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s